Main menu

Post navigation

How Moons Defy Evolutionary Predictions

You might have heard this story, the moon is geologically dead because it contains no volcanos, no tectonic plates, no frost or wind erosion. There are no lakes or rivers either, therefore no water erosion. No living organisms that can change sedimentation, but all it has done through the assumed time frame of billions of years is shrink as it cooled down, yet the earth’s moon has defied such a prediction!

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has discovered the moon has brand new surface features which happened recently and it continues to shrink. In fact it’s possible that it may still be occurring today! Reported in science daily...

“The moon cooled off as it aged, and scientists have long thought the moon shrank over time as it cooled, especially in its early history. The new research reveals relatively recent tectonic activity connected to the long-lived cooling and associated contraction of the lunar interior. “We estimate these cliffs, called lobate scarps, formed less than a billion years ago, and they could be as young as a hundred million years,” said Dr. Thomas Watters of the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, Washington.”

Since “the scarps look crisp and relatively undegraded” why couldn’t they be as young as a few thousand years or so, or 100 years? The article did point out the moon shrank early on in it’s supposed long history! Interesting to note, the article also mentioned Mercury. Despite being smaller it’s lobate scarps are 100 miles high and snake across the surface for hundreds of miles which is much larger than the scarps contained on the earth’s moon! All they could say was the moon shrank less.

Titan is another that was suppose to be geologically dead due to it’s supposed old age of billions of years, science daily reported…

“Since the formation of Titan, which scientists believe occurred around four billion years ago, the moon’s interior has cooled significantly,” as the old story goes…“But the moon is still releasing hundreds of gigawatts of power, some of which may be available for geologic activity.”

Another evolutionary prediction falsified once again! Observations like probing the moons and planets is what we really learn from in science, the reason why we don’t learn from evolutionary predictions and other speculations is because they are using the wrong model to explain things and discovery after discovery bare this out. It takes more faith to believe in these evolutionary predictions than God himself. If one goes by a young universe model, these recent observations are not opposed to it at all in fact, it confirms it!

7 thoughts on “How Moons Defy Evolutionary Predictions”

“We estimate these cliffs, called lobate scarps, formed less than a billion years ago, and they could be as young as a hundred million years,”….

They say that the journey of a thousand miles starts with q single step. So Michael figures that a billion years can’t really be so much more than ten thousand years. Can it? Michael trembles—

“

why couldn’t they be as young as a few thousand years or so, or 100 years?

Because the evidence says a billion years. Michael must be as challenged in maths as in other areas, where he has not yet made good on telling us what his qualifications are to discuss any field of science.

And in statistics, where he can’t seem to come up with readership numbers to verify his claim against Eelco.

Moreover, if Michael has to look this hard for a scrap of research that comes even within a factor of 100,000 of his requirement, then how will he ever find time to write his promised substantive review of Signature in the Cell?

BTW, Michael, were you ever able to download your free copy of Signature of a Controversy?

Michael, please let us all know exactly where any creationist has ever predicted, from creationist principles—

(a) Continued shrinkage of the moon.
(b) Formation of lunar lobate scarps <1Bya.
(c) Relatively recent tectonic activity on the moon.
(d) Cooling of the interior of Titan.

Detailed citations, please. Bwaaahaaahaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaaaa.

In science, you can't gloat unless you have first predicted.

.

In the words of Stephen Jay Gould—

“Darwin’s chief quarrel with Creationism resides not so much in its provable falseness, but in its bankrupt status as an intellectual argument—for a claim of creation teaches us nothing at all, but only states… that a particular creature or feature exists, a fact established well enough by a simple glance…. Moreover, and more negatively, creation marks the surrender of any attempt to understand connections and patterns. We express no causal insight whatever when we say that taxonomic order reflects the plan of a creator—for unless we can know the will of God, such a statement only stands as a redundant description of the order itself.”

Krissmith, we tol you once, we tol you a hunnert times—anything contrary to Michael’s beliefs is “evolution.”

That way he doesn’t have to think about too many different things, or make fine distinctions.

.

But, really, Michael. The Science Daily article noted the authors’ opinion that the scarps were probably not created by earth’s tides. However, they might have formed by relaxation of an early tidal bulge in the moon itself. After all, the induced stresses from tidally locked orbital recession would have been much greater than stresses induced by earth tides. (And they did say that earth tides may have produced enough stress to at least partially form the scarps.)

We’d like to hear your analysis as to why this might not be an alternative explanation, instead of the alleged contraction of the moon.

Olorin :Krissmith, we tol you once, we tol you a hunnert times—anything contrary to Michael’s beliefs is “evolution.”
That way he doesn’t have to think about too many different things, or make fine distinctions.
P>